DOCSLIB.ORG

JSC 5779 JUD Lec 01 DNA Paternity ID Slides

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
JSC 5779 JUD Lec 01 DNA Paternity ID Slides Jerusalem Science Contest החידון המדע הירושלמי DNA based Paternity Identification as applied within Judaism DNA as a tool in the Halacha decision process Based upon this essay Blood Tests and DNA - Part 2 by Rabbi Chaim Jachter 22 Shvat 5767 February 10, 2006 Rabbi Haim Jachter has been affiliated with the Sephardic Congregation of Teaneck since 2000. He serves as a Dayan on the Beth Din of Elizabeth, since 1993, and has acquired an international reputation of excellence in the area of Get administration. He is also a teacher at Torah Academy of Bergen County. Rabbi Jachter’s Yadin Yadin ordination is from Yeshiva University where he also earned his Master’s degree in Jewish Philosophy. Rabbi Jachter has authored four volumes of Gray Matter which discuss contemporary Halachic issues of major importance. He has also authored dozens of scholarly articles that have appeared in prestigious Torah journals both in Israel and the United States. Taken from: https://www.sephardicteaneck.org/our-rabbi.html Four rulings regarding the admissibility of DNA testing into the halacha decision process ➢ Rav Ovadia Yosef Non-recognition of the evidence value of DNA testing ➢ Rav Shlomo Dichovsky Quantifying the evidence value of DNA testing ➢ Rav Yosef Shalom Eliashiv Performing DNA testing to solve a personal doubt ➢ Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach DNA paternity ID as a hospital’s administrative tool. Halacha Ruling #1 – Non-recognition of the evidence value of DNA testing Rav Ovadia Yosef and the Israeli Rabbinic Court of Appeals, 1986 Rav Yosef Kapach Rabbi Ovadia Yosef Rav Yitzchak Kulitz The Case – Israel Rabbinic Court of Appeals, 1986 1. Unmarried couple separated. 2. After separation woman gives birth. 3. Male ex-partner claims paternity; mother denies paternity of male ex-partner. 4. Male ex-partner demands DNA testing to prove his paternity; mother refuses to be tested. District Bet Din rules male ex-partner to be father. Rationale: Mother’s refusal to be tested proves male ex-partner’s paternity. 5. Rabbinic Court of Appeals overturns decision of District Bet Din – paternity of male ex-partner is not established. 6. Rabbinic Court of Appeals rationale: Results of DNA testing are not acceptable evidence in paternity court decisions. Halacha Ruling #1 – Non-recognition of the evidence value of DNA testing Rav Ovadia Yosef and the Israeli Rabbinic Court of Appeals, 1986 Rav Yosef Kapach Rabbi Ovadia Yosef Rav Yitzchak Kulitz Dayanim reasoning for the Rabbinic Court of Appeals rationale: DNA test are not acceptable as legal evidence for a court paternity decision. IRCA rationale: Inferred from Talmud NOT offering DNA evidence as possible evidence option. Rabbi Jachter comment: If the Talmud decided to allow any other theoretical evidence of paternity, it would have constructed an absurd theoretical possibility (such as the ‘flying camel’ of Makot 5a). Rabbi Weiner’s response to Rabbi Jachter: “Flying Camel” was NOT theoretical. Per Rashi on Makkot 5a, “Flying Camel” was nothing more than colloquial for a very speedy (and probably expensive) transportation service similar to flying the supersonic Concorde as opposed to a regular commercial airliner. The Talmud is saying that we don’t consider unconventional techniques, even if they exist. But conventional methods are considered. Is DNA ID conventional? In 1986? Now? Halacha Ruling #2 – Quantifying the evidence value of DNA testing Rav Shlomo Dichovsky, Ashdod District Rabbinic Bet Din, 1982 The Case 1. Couple divorced; a “Get” properly executed for halachik divorce. 2. Subsequent to divorce, ex-husband sues for exemption from child support. Claim: he is not father of their two children. 3. Bet Din orders DNA testing (99.6% accuracy in 1982) to evidence paternity. 4. DNA results: Positive DNA of ex-husband’s paternity of only one of the children. 5. The issues: 1. Must the ex-husband pay child support for the child with negative DNA identification? 2. Is the children with negative DNA identification a “mamzer”? Rav Dichovsky’s decisions and rationales Decision #1: The ex-husband is exempt from paying child support for the child with negative DNA ID. Rationale: Although there is a legal assumption (using “Rov”- majority) that the ex-husband is the child’s father, the high accuracy of the DNA testing is sufficient to contradict the “Rov” and produce a doubt. Payment of child support cannot be enforced in a case of doubtful liability. Decision #2: The child with negative DNA ID is NOT a “mamzer” (or a “doubtful mamzer”). Rationale: The accuracy of DNA testing is not sufficiently high enough to contradict the child’s legitimacy based upon the “Rov”. The child also does NOT have the status of “doubtful mamzer”. Halacha Ruling #2 – Quantifying the evidence value of DNA testing Rav Shlomo Dichovsky, Ashdod District Rabbinic Bet Din, 1982 The Case 1. Couple divorced; a “Get” properly executed for halachik divorce. 2. Subsequent to divorce, ex-husband sues for exemption from child support. Claim: he is not father of their two children. 3. Bet Din orders DNA testing (99.6% accuracy in 1982) to evidence paternity. 4. DNA results: Positive DNA of ex-husband’s paternity of only one of the children. 5. The issues: 1. Must the ex-husband pay child support for the child with negative DNA identification? 2. Is the children with negative DNA identification a “mamzer”? The accompanying Dayanim decisions and rationales Decision #1: The ex-husband is liable to pay child support for the child with negative DNA ID. Rationale: The DNA ID testing is not admissible as evidence as it does not positively prove that the child is not of the ex- husband. Decision #2: The child with negative DNA ID is NOT a “mamzer” (or a “doubtful mamzer”). Rationale: Same as rationale to decision #1 Halacha Ruling #3 – DNA testing to solve a personal doubt, date unknown Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv The Inquiry 1. During pregnancy, a married woman claims (to friends) that her husband is not the father of her unborn child. 2. Years after the child’s birth, the woman’s husband asked Rav Elyashiv whether DNA testing should be performed to establish paternity. The issue: Should DNA testing be performed to settle a personal held paternity doubt in the absence of any legal challenge, civil or religious? Rav Elyashiv’s decision (Rabbical psak halacha) and rationale Decision #1: No. Do not perform DNA testing for the purpose of settling a personal doubt unrelated to a legal challenge. Rationale: Years of the child’s acceptance as the legitimate offspring of the husband produces an assumption “Chazaka” of legitimacy. In this case, Jewish law would deem it inappropriate to collect information whose results could upset the assumption of legitimacy and wreak havoc on the child’s life. Inference from Rav Elyashiv’s decision: DNA evidence is admissible in court. It was for this reason that Rav Elyashiv directed not to collect this evidence Halacha Ruling #4 – DNA ID as a Hospital’s administrative tool Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach The Inquiry 1. Two babies confused at birth. 2. The hospital administration asked Rav Auerback and Rav Eliezer Waldenberg whether they could performed DNA testing to ID the children to the parents. Rav Auerbach’s (and Rav Waldenberg’s) decision (psak halacha) and rationale Decision #1: Yes. Perform the DNA ID. Rationale: DNA paternity identification used administratively by hospitals is permitted. Additional from Rav Auerbach’s decision: Rav Waldenberg previous disallowed DNA ID for use as evidence in court. It appears that, as functional court evidence, DNA is not admissible. However, as an administrative tool to solve a technical uncertainty, DNA ID results are acceptable. Dr. Abraham S. Abraham quotes Rav Auerbach as saying that DNA testing has gained enough popular worldwide acceptance so as to give it legitimate evidential reliability in a Bet Din Rav Eliezer Waldenberg, the “Tzitz Eliezer” Summary 1) What can we in fact prove from DNA testing? When markers match, one can argue a positive identification. But if the markers don’t match, can we say with complete confidence that the relationship does not exist? 2) What is the reliability and accuracy of the DNA testing results? 3) How does information from DNA testing relate to the application of legal mechanisms such as Rov and Chazaka? 4) Are there societal reasons that may affect our decision to pursue or not pursue DNA testing in certain cases such as mamzerut? 5) Is the acceptability of DNA evidence in a Bet Din related to or affected by its acceptance in courtrooms belonging to the surrounding secular world? 6) Are the DNA testing results being submitted as evidence in a Bet Din in response to a legal challenge or are they being used to solve a personal dilemma unrelated to a court case? 7) Differentiate between an inquiry of a Rav for a “psak halacha” versus a claim in Bet Din defending or opposing a claim. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Jewish Perspectives on Reproductive Realities by Rabbi Lori Koffman, NCJW Board Director and Chair of NCJW’S Reproductive Health, Rights and Justice Initiative
    Jewish Perspectives on Reproductive Realities By Rabbi Lori Koffman, NCJW Board Director and Chair of NCJW’s Reproductive Health, Rights and Justice Initiative A note on the content below: We acknowledge that this document invokes heavily gendered language due to the prevailing historic male voices in Jewish rabbinic and biblical perspectives, and the fact that Hebrew (the language in which these laws originated) is a gendered language. We also recognize some of these perspectives might be in contradiction with one another and with some of NCJW’s approaches to the issues of reproductive health, rights, and justice. Background Family planning has been discussed in Judaism for several thousand years. From the earliest of the ‘sages’ until today, a range of opinions has existed — opinions which can be in tension with one another and are constantly evolving. Historically these discussions have assumed that sexual intimacy happens within the framework of heterosexual marriage. A few fundamental Jewish tenets underlie any discussion of Jewish views on reproductive realities. • Protecting an existing life is paramount, even when it means a Jew must violate the most sacred laws.1 • Judaism is decidedly ‘pro-natalist,’ and strongly encourages having children. The duty of procreation is based on one of the earliest and often repeated obligations of the Torah, ‘pru u’rvu’, 2 to be ‘fruitful and multiply.’ This fundamental obligation in the Jewish tradition is technically considered only to apply to males. Of course, Jewish attitudes toward procreation have not been shaped by Jewish law alone, but have been influenced by the historic communal trauma (such as the Holocaust) and the subsequent yearning of some Jews to rebuild community through Jewish population growth.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lord Immanuel Jakobovits Center
    THE LORD RABBI IMMANUEL JAKOBOVITS CENTER FOR JEWISH MEDICAL ETHICS BEN-GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV BEER-SHEVA, ISRAEL REPORT 5774 2013-2014 P.O.B. 653 BEER-SHEVA 84105, ISRAEL TEL.972- 8-6477414-5 FAX.972-8-6477633 CENTER STAFF / ASSOCIATES . Alan B. Jotkowitz M.D. Senior Lecturer Director – The Lord Jakobovits Center . Carmi Z. Margolis M.D. Professor of Pediatric Medicine Director Emeritus, The Lord Jakobovits Center . Shimon M. Glick M.D. Professor Emeritus of Medicine Director Emeritus, The Lord Jakobovits Center . Frank (Yeruham) J. Leavitt Ph.D. Senior Lecturer ?? . Mark Clarfield M.D. Professor of Geriatrics . Ute Deichmann Ph.D. Lecturer ?? . Zeev Silverman Ph.D. Professor in the Department of Morphology . Frieda Simonstein Post Doctoral fellow – reproductive ethics . Rabbi Akivah Nachshon M.D. Surgical Resident . Gad Potashnik M.D. Professor of Obstetrics . Hannah Ziedenberg Nursing instructor . Asher Weller Medical student . Danielle Ophir Medical student . Adam Rosenbloom Medical student . Diana Marcus Executive Secretary 2 SUPPORTING FOUNDATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS . Kaplan-Kushlik Foundation . Mendel Kaplan . Jill Kaplan . S. Daniel Abraham . Michael Gross . Mrs. Els Bendheim . Mr. Solomon Freedman . Dr. Heinz-Horst Deichman . Elizabeth and Sidney Corob . Prof. Louis Waller . Dr. Ingrid Tauber . Dr. Fred Tauber . Dr. Bernard Kabakow . Mr. Haim Sheer - CG Foundation . Mr. Azriel Reichman We herewith acknowledge, with appreciation, the financial and moral support of the above named foundation and individuals. It is thanks to their help that the work of the Center is being promoted. Special Thanks goes to our Faculty Dean, Prof. Shaul Sofer and to Mr. Hertzl Jean, Head Faculty Administrator for their help and support and to Lady Jakobovits for her continued interest and devotion to the work of the Center.
    [Show full text]
  • The Two Objectives of the Institution of Marriage
    Rabbi Dr. Binyamin Lau is the Rosh Beit Midrash of Beit Morasha in Jerusalem and is the author of numerous articles and books. THE TWO OBJECTIVES OF THE INSTITUTION OF MAR R IAGE1 “For She is Your Companion, and the Wife of Your Covenant.” (Malakhi 2:14) Rabbi Dr. Binyamin Lau Introduction: Marriage According to Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik In the beginning of his article on marriage,2 Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik notes that there are two basic theories about the institution of marriage. The first expresses commitment to the welfare of the group outside the matrimonial union, the partners to the marriage placing themselves at the service of society. The second expresses commitment within the matrimonial union, a commit- ment rooted in the experience of the joining of two individuals thirsting for love and fellowship. One practical difference between the two theories relates to the place assigned to procreation. According to the first theory, having children is the central element upon which the entire structure of marriage rests. Remove that obligation from marriage, and the institution loses all its meaning. According to the second theory, the significance of marriage is not diminished by the absence of offspring. The very union of the wedded partners is itself the desired creation. In his typical manner,3 here too Rabbi Soloveitchik tries to uncover both of these motifs in Scripture. The command to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen.1:28) expresses the essence and goal of the man created in the first chapter of the book of Genesis. Man’s obligation to procreate, which appears in chapter 1, is presented as part of man being God’s partner in the continuous process of creation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Contemporary Jewish Legal Treatment of Depressive Disorders in Conflict with Halakha
    t HaRofei LeShvurei Leiv: The Contemporary Jewish Legal Treatment of Depressive Disorders in Conflict with Halakha Senior Honors Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the School of Arts and Sciences Brandeis University Undergraduate Program in Near Eastern and Judaic Studies Prof. Reuven Kimelman, Advisor Prof. Zvi Zohar, Advisor In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts by Ezra Cohen December 2018 Accepted with Highest Honors Copyright by Ezra Cohen Committee Members Name: Prof. Reuven Kimelman Signature: ______________________ Name: Prof. Lynn Kaye Signature: ______________________ Name: Prof. Zvi Zohar Signature: ______________________ Table of Contents A Brief Word & Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………... iii Chapter I: Setting the Stage………………………………………………………………………. 1 a. Why This Thesis is Important Right Now………………………………………... 1 b. Defining Key Terms……………………………………………………………… 4 i. Defining Depression……………………………………………………… 5 ii. Defining Halakha…………………………………………………………. 9 c. A Short History of Depression in Halakhic Literature …………………………. 12 Chapter II: The Contemporary Legal Treatment of Depressive Disorders in Conflict with Halakha…………………………………………………………………………………………. 19 d. Depression & Music Therapy…………………………………………………… 19 e. Depression & Shabbat/Holidays………………………………………………… 28 f. Depression & Abortion…………………………………………………………. 38 g. Depression & Contraception……………………………………………………. 47 h. Depression & Romantic Relationships…………………………………………. 56 i. Depression & Prayer……………………………………………………………. 70 j. Depression &
    [Show full text]
  • Abortion / Cosmetic Surgery Abortion, Continued 1. Rabbi
    Introduction to Jewish Bioethics #2: Abortion / Cosmetic Surgery R’ Mordechai Torczyner – [email protected] Abortion, continued 1. Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (20th century Israel), Tzitz Eliezer 9:51:3 Or, perhaps when Tosafot says one may kill [the fetus], he means one is not liable at all under the law of murder, but Tosafot agrees that it is prohibited as wounding, and therefore one may not kill it without another human need. 2. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (20th century USA), Igrot Moshe Choshen Mishpat 2:69:2 Killing a fetus is prohibited until the doctors have great reason, close to certainty, that the mother will die. Since the permission is due to the fetus’s status as a pursuer, it must be near-certain that he is a pursuer. 3. Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (20th century Israel), Tzitz Eliezer 13:102 It is clear and obvious as law that a Jew is not killed for [aborting] a fetus. Aside from one view, the authorities rule that there is a prohibition, but many authorities believe that this prohibition is rabbinic, or it is under “building the world.” But there is no concern for destroying a life, and therefore Maharit 1:97-99 permits arrangement for a Jewish woman to abort a fetus where it is needed for the mother’s health, even without it being a matter of saving the mother’s life… And in such a case, and beyond this, Rabbi Yaakov Emden permitted, writing, “And even with a legitimate fetus, there is room to be lenient for great need, so long as it has not been uprooted [for birth], even without a need to save the mother’s life, but only to save her from her evil, which causes her great pain.” We see clearly that this permission of Rabbi Yaakov Emden is even when it is not a matter of saving the mother’s life, and it is only to save her from great pain from the child, and that in general there is room to be lenient for great need.
    [Show full text]
  • Halachic Aspects of Vaccination
    Nature&Science By Edward Reichman Halachic Aspects of Vaccination Perhaps it is because we live in When potential relief from the horrors smallpox and beseeching the rabbis of twenty-first century America, a coun- of the disease came on the horizon, his generation to allow inoculation. try largely immune from true epi- there must have been unabashed ex- However, the treatment was con- demics, that we take vaccination for citement. The cure, or, more accu- sidered controversial at the time, as granted and some parents even con- rately, the mechanism of disease never in the history of mankind had sider not vaccinating their children. A prevention, however, was unique in the one taken a healthy individual and in- Jew living in the eighteenth century history of medicine: it required expos- jected him with the very cause of an would have longed for respite from the ing healthy individuals to disease, illness, even if the objective was to relentless onslaught of diseases, and hopefully a mild form, in order to pre- prevent a more severe disease. This could only have dreamed of having a vent the development of a more seri- unique treatment posed a dilemma for way to prevent them. The thought of ous disease. The procedure involved the Torah-observant Jew. The Torah refusing vaccinations would never the removal of fluid from the pox of an gives license to the physician to heal have entered his mind. Unfortunately, afflicted patient, and the subsequent the sick, but does it give him license to nowadays, as a result of misleading in- injection of that virulent fluid into the bestow illness upon the healthy, albeit formation, some parents are confused body of a healthy individual.
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter Aw[ Yl [Wrp Vol
    Ohr Yisrael of Marine Park Newsletter aw[ yL [wrp Vol. 1 Issue 17 Cong. Ohr Yisrael, 2899 Nostrand Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11229 718-382-8702 www.ohryisroel.org I NSIDE T HIS I SSUE ... war Mymwb Kl xq h{av 1 evbwh [wrp The Pasuk says wdq [xwm Nmw v[a [ywev…war Mymwb Kl xq h{av” 2 KId’s Korner ”Mky[rdl yl hz hyhy “Now you, take for yourself choice spices...of it 3 hklh yrbd you shall make sacred oil of anointment...this shall remain for Me for your generations.” 4 Adult Challenge Question 5 Community News & Events Many commentators ask why the Pasuk states Kl xq h{av, “Now you, take for yourself”, rather than simply , as it says in the following 6 Answers to Challenge Q.’s Kl xq Parsha regarding the Ketores, or [ywev, “and you shall make”, as it states in the previous Parsha of the Kiyor and all the other utensils of the Mishkan. Zmaanim In his first interpretation, The Ohr HaChaim suggests that this mitzvah [vrn [qldh 5:20pm was given specifically to Moshe, and that he alone had to provide the q“we hxnm 5:28pm ingredients needed and then produce the anointing oil. heyqw 5:38pm In his second answer, he brings the Gemarah that states that the twelve Lugin of prepared by were the only anointing oil ever rveyw aybn 8:30am hxwmh Nmw hwm made or used. Although it was used to anoint the Mishkan and its [yrxw 9:00am utensils, Aharon and his children, and all the subsequent Kohanim Gedolim, as well as kings, it miraculously remained undiminished, and w”q Nmz Fvs 8:48 / 9:24a always measured a full twelve Lugin.
    [Show full text]
  • What Jewish Law Really Says About Abortion - Jewish Telegraphic Agency Ephraim Sherman
    What Jewish law really says about abortion - Jewish Telegraphic Agency Ephraim Sherman (JTA) – Alabama and Georgia have passed laws recently that limit or forbid abortions in unprecedented ways, joining a growing number of states that are attempting to dramatically restrict abortion access. During these charged times, it is appropriate for the Jewish community to remind ourselves that halacha (Jewish law) has a nuanced view of abortion. It seems that many in the Orthodox Jewish community have not been overly worried by these and other efforts to curtail legal abortion. Ben Shapiro, a conservative commentator who identifies as an Orthodox Jew, has long been a loud voice in favor of government-imposed restrictions on abortion. He has cheered the recent state level bans in print, on social media and in his podcasts. He argues that Judaism is in the “pro-life” political camp, as opposed to “pro- choice.” But in America, the pro-life narrative is largely articulated by the Christian right, and there are important differences between how Judaism and Christianity view the span of time between conception and birth. Earlier this year, New York state significantly eased its restrictions on abortions after 24 weeks (often called “late term abortion,” which carries ideological baggage and is preferred on the right). This makes it far more feasible for a woman to have a life-saving abortion, or an abortion of a genetically anomalous fetus, later in pregnancy. Importantly, the law does not allow for abortions after 24 weeks without a medical justification. Many of these abortions are fully in line with Jewish law but previously had been more legally questionable.
    [Show full text]
  • Laws of Medical Treatment on Shabbat
    Laws of Medical Treatment on Shabbat Dov Karoll The permissibility of treatment of the ill on Shabbat varies from mandated and required even when numerous melachot would need to be violated, to permitted, provided it does not violate any melachot, to prohibited for the simple fact that it is medical treatment. What factors lead to such a great disparity? The primary, crucial distinction at work here is between medi- cal treatment that involves saving a life (piku’ach nefesh), which is permitted and even required, even if it means violating the normal rules of Shabbat, and providing medical treatment in other cases, regarding which the rules are more complex. When is medical treatment required even if it involves violating melachot? The Rambam is very clear on this issue:1 It is forbidden to delay in violating Shabbat for a person who is dangerously ill (choleh she-yesh bo sakkana), as it says [in the Gemara, based on a verse]: “[Regarding the laws of the Torah] ‘man shall fulfill them and live,’2 rather than fulfill them to die.”3 We learn from here that the laws of the Torah are not to 1 Hilchot Shabbat 2:3. This passage is also cited in Shemirat Shabbat Ke-Hilchatah at the beginning of his discussion of the laws of piku’ach nefesh on Shabbat (32:1). Translation mine. 2 Vayikra 18:5. 3 The verse is cited, and the law is derived, in the Gemara Yoma 85b, where this explanation of Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel is one of many sources provid- ed for the notion of saving lives overriding Shabbat observance (starting on 85a).
    [Show full text]
  • Parshas Matos Masei the Rest of the Story
    CANDLELIGHTING: 8:44 VOLUME 1 ISSUE 14 כ"ח תמוז תשע"ג SHABBOS ENDS: AFTER 9:47 72 MIN 10:14 JULY 6, 2013 PARSHAS MATOS MASEI THE REST OF THE STORY: By R‟ Aaron Kutnowski Yehuda son of Tema said: Be bold like a leopard … to do the will of What’s behind the passuk? our Father in Heaven. (Pirkei Avos, 5: 23) By R‟ Yosef Dovid Rothbart After their great victory over Midian, the Bnei Yisroel brought back The Torah relates how Moshe assembled 1,000 men from each of the many spoils of war. Instructed by Hashem, Moshe allotted the spoils Shevatim and sent them out into battle against Midian. The Torah to the Bnei Yisroel including Elazar HaKohen and Shevet Levi. repeats this three times (Possukim 4-5) to teach us that although only Usually Kohanim and Leviim do not receive a portion from the 1,000 warriors fought the battle, 3,000 men from every Shevet were spoils of war. What, then, made the war against Midian different so selected to partake in this battle. Two thousand were needed to fight that Elazar HaKohen and Shevet Levi received portions? the war and guard the supplies, and 1,000 were to daven for the The Medrash Tanchuma states that after Pinchos zealously speared soldiers who were out in the battlefield. Zimri, the Bnei Yisroel were very upset. They protested, saying: Moshe chose so few soldiers to demonstrate to the Jewish people the “Have you seen the son of [Yisro] whose mother‟s father fattened terrible consequences of sin.
    [Show full text]
  • Jewish Ethical Guidelines for Resuscitation and Artificial Nutrition and Hydration of the Dying Elderly
    Journal ofmedical ethics 1994; 20: 93-100 J Med Ethics: first published as 10.1136/jme.20.2.93 on 1 June 1994. Downloaded from Jewish ethical guidelines for resuscitation and artificial nutrition and hydration of the dying elderly Rabbi Zev Schostak Gurwin Jewish Geriatric Center, New York, USA Author's abstract nasia for the elderly and a Michigan doctor to create The bioethical issues confronting the 7ewish chaplain in and use the so-called 'death machine' (1). Jewish law a long-term carefacility are critical, particularly as life- vigorously asserts that life, even that of a terminal, support systems become more sophisticated and advance demented, elderly patient is of infinite value; it must directives become more commonplace. May an elderly be preserved no less than the life of a young and alert competent patient refuse CPR in advance ifit is child with a hopeful long-term prognosis (2). perceived as a life-prolonging measure? May a This bold position is presented in a classic case physician withhold CPR or artificial nutrition and (Yoma 83a) where the Mishnah directs that one hydration (which some view as basic care and not as must immediately remove debris that has fallen therapeutic intervention) from terminal patients with upon someone on Shabbat, even though the victim irreversible illnesses? may only live for a short time. Jewish legal codes and In this study ofJewish ethics relating to these issues, responsa (3) elaborate that he or she must be saved copyright. the author carefully examines the moral implications even though his or her skull was crushed and he or and legalprecedents in the literature.
    [Show full text]
  • The Debate in Jewish Law
    UCLA UCLA Public Law & Legal Theory Series Title Is Copyright Property? The Debate in Jewish Law Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/41r86098 Authors Netanel, Neil Nimmer, David Publication Date 2010-05-26 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California DRAFT: September 20, 2010 Forthcoming in THEORETICAL INQUIRIES IN LAW, Vol. 12, No. 1 (2011) Comments welcome: [email protected] Is Copyright Property? — The Debate in Jewish Law Neil W. Netanel and David Nimmer* Is copyright a property right? Common law and civil law jurists have debated that issue for over three centuries. It remains at the heart of battles over copyright’s scope and duration today, even if its import lies principally in the rhetorical force of labeling a right as “property,” not in any doctrinal consequence flowing directly from that label. In parallel to their common law and civil law counterparts, present-day rabbinic jurists engage in lively debate whether Jewish law recognizes copyright as a property right. And, as in secular law but for different reasons, that issue has significant repercussions in Jewish law. As discussed in rabbinic court decisions and writings, whether Jewish law accords authors a right of ownership in their works impacts such issues as whether it is permissible, without license from the author or publisher, to copy and distribute software and sound recordings, perform music in wedding halls, make copies for private and classroom use, and download songs from the Internet. * Respectively, Pete Kameron Endowed Chair in Law, UCLA School of Law, and Professor from Practice, UCLA School of Law.
    [Show full text]